tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post2582942867530948139..comments2023-11-05T04:53:34.346-08:00Comments on Unqualified Reservations: How Dawkins got pwned (part 3)Mencius Moldbughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16472157249344139282noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-20932560137611145262009-03-02T21:44:00.000-08:002009-03-02T21:44:00.000-08:00^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵...^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.taipei-detective.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.taipei-detective.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.taoyuan-detective.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.taoyuan-detective.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.taichung-detective.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.taichung-detective.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.kaohsiung-detective.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.kaohsiung-detective.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.domestic-violence.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.domestic-violence.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.daai007.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.daai007.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.asia-new.com.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.asia-new.com.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.daaidetective.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.daaidetective.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.cup007.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.cup007.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.daai009.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.daai009.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.smart007.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.smart007.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.tool007.net/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.tool007.net/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.vip357.com.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.vip357.com.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.honhai007.org/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.honhai007.org/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.detective-s.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.detective-s.org.tw/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>, <A HREF="http://www.sharp007.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信">徵信</A>, <A HREF="http://www.sharp007.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="徵信社">徵信社</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-80360122286277338862008-02-22T14:24:00.000-08:002008-02-22T14:24:00.000-08:00Just for the record, leftist claims that affirmati...Just for the record, leftist claims that affirmative action is intended to remedy <I>present</I> rather than <I>past</I> discrimination are flatly contradicted by Thomas Sowell. From <I>Affirmative Action Around the World</I>, p. 11: <BR/>"No historic sufferings of blacks in the United States can justify preferential benefits to white women or to recently-arrived immgrants from Asia or Latin America who happen to be non-white, but whose ancestors obviously never suffered any discrimination in the United States."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-16612782577795804372007-10-17T04:53:00.000-07:002007-10-17T04:53:00.000-07:00tggp,Re; "It's a broad spectrum that anyone may ch...tggp,<BR/><BR/><I>Re; "It's a broad spectrum that anyone may choose their place on."</I><BR/><BR/>True, but the Individualist is willing to live and let live and the Universalist is not. It bothers me not at all that many believe they owe a debt to some meta-community or another, but it bothers me greatly when they force me to pay a debt that I do not believe I owe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-26866102043070206662007-10-16T22:57:00.000-07:002007-10-16T22:57:00.000-07:00nteresting. you seem to suggest that, say, passing...<I>nteresting. you seem to suggest that, say, passing by a drowning man and not caring about his drowning, not even enough to toss him a rope lying nearby, should be a perfectly acceptable alternative to caring about the life of a stranger.</I><BR/>I'm fine with that. I'm not saying I would never rescue the drowning man, only that I feel no obligation and if I did so it would be for my own reasons.<BR/><BR/>It is also ridiculous to say the alternatives are universalism or anti-universalist sociopathy. It's a broad spectrum that anyone may choose their place on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-12300732502854510232007-10-16T14:28:00.000-07:002007-10-16T14:28:00.000-07:00victor,In order to proclaim the fundamentalist nat...victor,<BR/><BR/><I>In order to proclaim the fundamentalist nature of universalist mores, the anti-universalists have to essentially normalize sociopathy, proclaim it a perfectly acceptable alternative which has been -- alas! -- suppressed by the evil universalist fundies</I><BR/><BR/>Well put, yes. And even if you were mocking it, I'll stand by that claim, at least for the moment.<BR/><BR/>I say that the attitude you call sociopathy is, historically speaking, quite common. Now, that doesn't speak immediately to it being a valid worldview, but I think it does require the side that wants to eradicate it, to proclaim it as evil, to provide evidence as to why.<BR/><BR/>I think the fundamentalists are suffering from a version of the God Delusion, and can make a good case for it. The only case I've seen for the fundamentalist side of things is that it's obvious. Which is exactly what I expect Delusionary people to reply.<BR/><BR/>So, again, I honestly ask for the case for why it is that I should be made to care for distant faceless strangers?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04057215814757188491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-48065261487519421732007-10-16T13:32:00.000-07:002007-10-16T13:32:00.000-07:00An Individualist is not a sociopath. He or she is...An Individualist is not a sociopath. He or she is a person who finds involuntary relationships invalid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-74885723430180455262007-10-16T12:25:00.000-07:002007-10-16T12:25:00.000-07:00mtraven,Well, both are extreme caricatures. In rea...<B>mtraven</B>,<BR/><BR/><I>Well, both are extreme caricatures. In reality, the only absolute individualist is the psychopath</I><BR/><BR/>Excellent point. that's what it really comes down to, no? In order to proclaim the fundamentalist nature of universalist mores, the anti-universalists have to essentially normalize sociopathy, proclaim it a perfectly acceptable alternative which has been -- alas! -- suppressed by the evil universalist fundies.Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17964804781965361460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-31336895054481789712007-10-16T10:57:00.000-07:002007-10-16T10:57:00.000-07:00mtraven,In reply to "Why should I so obviously car...mtraven,<BR/><BR/>In reply to "Why should I so obviously care about faceless distant strangers?"<BR/><BR/>You ask "Why should you care about anybody?"<BR/><BR/>Your question seems to be meant to parallel mine, so I want to make sure we are using "should" in the same way in these two questions. My "should" is used in the sense of "obligated to the point where it can obviously be imposed upon me."<BR/><BR/>So, the answer to your question is "I shouldn't. Nobody has an obvious obligation to care about anyone else they haven't assumed responsibility for."<BR/><BR/>Note that my statement is NOT proscriptive ("Nobody should care for anyone else."), nor is it even atempting to be a pragmatic analysis of public policy ("It is foolish to adopt policies that enforce coercively funded public welfare.")<BR/><BR/>It is simply a denial that the ethical statement "I should care for distant faceless strangers." is in any way obviously, universally, objectively true.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04057215814757188491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-41100562532373667072007-10-16T10:29:00.000-07:002007-10-16T10:29:00.000-07:00mtraven,Re; "Radical individualism or radical univ...mtraven,<BR/><BR/><I>Re; "Radical individualism or radical universalism are both attempts to apply oversimplified rules to this complex situation."</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed. These are the extremes, and there is much room for personal choice. That is why we have law. It seems to me that the default position of the law in the US is Individualist, i.e., that there is no default debt. While it is true that if I earn money I will be required to pay rent (taxes), there is no requirement to earn money. So what happens if the law changes to a more Universalist position? I'd say the Soviet Union is a good example. Mandatory work, mandatory civil and military service, production oriented to the needs of the state, etc. I'd say the real world results of Universalism applied in law have demonstrated significant morbidity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-7776558470250645182007-10-16T10:04:00.000-07:002007-10-16T10:04:00.000-07:00mark asks: Why should I so obviously care about fa...mark asks: <I>Why should I so obviously care about faceless distant strangers?</I><BR/><BR/>Why should you care about anybody? Why should proximity, or lack of face, be such a determining factor of who you care about?<BR/><BR/>randy noted my "allegiance to everyone" phrase and said:<BR/><I>The Universalist observes that there are many people in the world and concludes that everyone owes everyone. The Individualist observes that there are many people in the world and concludes that no one owes anyone.</I><BR/>Well, both are extreme caricatures. In reality, the only absolute individualist is the psychopath, and while some of the people here have extremely dubious opinions I wouldn't pin that label on them. And I don't think any universalist would require us to care equally about everyone, all the time, because that simply isn't practical. (The only person I know who even has a vague pretense to that belief is the philosopher Peter Singer, but even he admits he can't live up to his own ideals). In practice there is a vast space of possible positions between not owing nothing to anyone, and owing everything to everyone. Aside from the various tribalisms and nationalisms, there is always the fairly reasonable and boring option of letting your caringness quotient start at 1 for yourself and immediate family, drop off sharply to a moderate level for friends and neighbors, and keep dropping off as you travel otu the concentric circles of proximity until you reach the faceless hordes of the antipodes, without ever dropping to zero.<BR/><BR/>Of course, since the antipodes are all instantly accessible by image or internet these days, and you could actually be there in 24 hours if you wanted to, this doesn't actually make much sense. We're all very closely connected these days, and likely to get more so barring a global economic collapse. <BR/><BR/>If we are genetically tribalists, primed to only care about our hunter-gatherer band of 50-100 close relatives, then Universalism is a response to the fact that we are living in rather different circumstances these days. We've had civilization (cities) for thousands of years, and industrialized market economies for a hundreds of years. Such living arrangements require us to deal with a great many strangers and non-relatives on a daily basis. Radical individualism or radical universalism are both attempts to apply oversimplified rules to this complex situation.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-4928352723945236102007-10-16T08:19:00.000-07:002007-10-16T08:19:00.000-07:00What they want is sacrifice - not caring. To be mo...<I> What they want is sacrifice - not caring. </I><BR/><BR/>To be more precise, they want to administer the sacrifices of others. They personally sacrifice nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-4227939625312466212007-10-16T04:42:00.000-07:002007-10-16T04:42:00.000-07:00Victor,Perhaps I just watched the drowning man jum...Victor,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I just watched the drowning man jump from a high bridge. Perhaps the current is very strong. Perhaps there is no rope near at hand and I can't swim. Perhaps I have a family at home that needs me. Its about choice. I might or I might not jump in. What the Universalists want is to force me to jump in regardless of the circumstances or consequences. What they want is sacrifice - not caring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-62390368422332324172007-10-16T02:19:00.000-07:002007-10-16T02:19:00.000-07:00Wow, Mark, you've cut right to the quick. And her...Wow, Mark, you've cut right to the quick. And here I'd thought this thread was past the point of offering anything new or interesting to think about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-44649216270692368072007-10-15T23:17:00.000-07:002007-10-15T23:17:00.000-07:00I thought the point was, not that Universalists ca...I thought the point was, not that Universalists care about "everybody" but that they care almost exclusively for other Universalists, and that they use "the oppressed Other" as a proxy for furthering the moral righteousness of their religion.<BR/><BR/>They certainly couldn't be said to care about quiverfull fundamentalist Protestants or traditional Catholics or white nationalists or even Mormons, for instance, regardless of how marginalized any of those groups might happen to be. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I disagree that Universalism is impotent in the face of threats from outside. Hang around any of them for about two weeks, and you'll be amazed by how they can get whipped into a frenzy against some perceived threat to the tribe's belief system. There is NO shortage of "them versus us" going on. <BR/><BR/>It just has to be framed in the right way. <BR/><BR/>Would today's Universalists willingly and ferociously go to war against Nazi Germany? You bet they would!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-85512256710816081152007-10-15T21:12:00.000-07:002007-10-15T21:12:00.000-07:00victor,You use the language of the morally offende...victor,<BR/><BR/>You use the language of the morally offended that I should even suggest that I have no obligation to sacrifice in order to improve the lives of faceless distant strangers. I know you'd reject the "reasoning" used in your reply out of hand were it presented to you. <BR/><BR/>I honestly invite you to take another pass at it. Why should I so obviously care about faceless distant strangers?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04057215814757188491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-8177571067339297792007-10-15T20:50:00.000-07:002007-10-15T20:50:00.000-07:00Interesting. you seem to suggest that, say, passin...<I>Interesting. you seem to suggest that, say, passing by a drowning man and not caring about his drowning, not even enough to toss him a rope lying nearby, should be a perfectly acceptable alternative to caring about the life of a stranger.<BR/><BR/>Are you fucking serious? And if this isn't what you are suggesting, then, paraphrasing Churchill, we are just haggling over the price.</I><BR/><BR/>One of the more silly and obtuse posts I've ever seen. I didn't realise we were talking about saving drowning men and babies in little strollers caught in traffic.<BR/><BR/>Saving someone in temporary distress from death isn't even remotely similar to shouldering the burdens of their life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-5160601343118060792007-10-15T19:29:00.000-07:002007-10-15T19:29:00.000-07:00mark,A strong sign that we live in a fundamentalis...<B>mark</B>,<BR/><BR/><I>A strong sign that we live in a fundamentalist culture of some kind is that fact that it is assumed that everyone should strongly and directly care about the well-being of strangers. And that failure to do so is not a difference of taste or opinion, but EVIL.</I><BR/><BR/>Interesting. you seem to suggest that, say, passing by a drowning man and not caring about his drowning, not even enough to toss him a rope lying nearby, should be a perfectly acceptable alternative to caring about the life of a stranger.<BR/><BR/>Are you fucking serious? And if this isn't what you are suggesting, then, paraphrasing Churchill, we are just haggling over the price.Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17964804781965361460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-88768259870838875542007-10-15T09:58:00.000-07:002007-10-15T09:58:00.000-07:00Mark,Re; "...yet everyone feels the need to preten...Mark,<BR/><BR/><I>Re; "...yet everyone feels the need to pretend to everyone else, and themselves, that they do."</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly. I see the situation like this; My ability to truly care divided by the number of people in the nation, or the world, is a really, really, small number. In fact, pretending to care probably makes the problem worse by using up a resource that would be better spent caring about people I can truly care about. I think it makes sense to assume that nationalism, universalism, etc., are about power, not caring, and that's what I hear when the propaganda starts to play.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-64478074306970674872007-10-15T08:58:00.000-07:002007-10-15T08:58:00.000-07:00I read victor and broadside's exchange with intere...I read victor and broadside's exchange with interests until it broke down into typical internet pointsmanship. But it did succeed in getting me to think. Specifically, why does broadside feel the need to attack the data rather than attack the fundamental premises? <BR/><BR/>A strong sign that we live in a fundamentalist culture of some kind is that fact that it is assumed that everyone should strongly and directly care about the well-being of strangers. And that failure to do so is not a difference of taste or opinion, but EVIL.<BR/><BR/>If AA took its justification as a pragmatic way of keeping the peace, or getting maximum voluntary value out of interactions with strangers, that's one thing. The appeals to fairness and level playing field and mobility, however, seem like pure fundamentalism.<BR/><BR/>If I say "some of these widgets seem to have a higher breakdown rate than others, can we analyze why and try to identify those more likely to fail, and then stop using those?" And the reply is "Oh, but some of those widgets come from a very sparse factory, one which is poorly outfitted through no fault of its own, because people unjustly stole equipment from it. Think of how unfair it is to these widgets," my proper response is "I don't care."<BR/><BR/>The culture screams at us that we *should* directly value the well-being of faceless distant strangers, when in fact it seems that almost nobody actually does. And yet everyone feels the need to pretend to everyone else, and themselves, that they do.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04057215814757188491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-73156442974890713482007-10-15T07:16:00.000-07:002007-10-15T07:16:00.000-07:00Anonymous,I see your point that Universalism under...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I see your point that Universalism undermines the value of Nationalism, but why make Nationalism the standard? Nationalism is also a point on the continuum of meta-community - that is, it is just a belief. And it is a belief that undermines real communities, real families, and real individuals. I don't think it is the morbidity of the nation that matters, but the morbidity of real communities, real families, and real individuals. <BR/><BR/>P.S. I disagree that the second statement (on Individualism) is not true. The belief that there is no default debt is pretty much the definition of Individualism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-30787016294192488972007-10-14T22:52:00.000-07:002007-10-14T22:52:00.000-07:00I think you've nailed it with that phrase. It defi...<I>I think you've nailed it with that phrase. It defines the basic difference between the Individualist and the Universalist.<BR/><BR/>The Universalist observes that there are many people in the world and concludes that everyone owes everyone. The Individualist observes that there are many people in the world and concludes that no one owes anyone.</I><BR/><BR/>This first assertion is correct, the second one not. An individualist need believe no such <BR/><BR/><I>Which is better? Depends on the objective. The Universalists seem to believe there is an objective, though it seems unfocused, at best, to me. At worst it is simply manipulation.</I><BR/><BR/>This is interesting; I believe the subject has finally swung back around to question of morbidity in Universalism. The belief in this "brotherhood of man" can be more straightforwardly and effectively be shown to be both 1)arational and 2)morbid than the related theme of "all hominids are born equal".<BR/><BR/>The most obvious sign of moorbidity and arationality is how it contradicts basic Darwinian truths. Quite simply human beings are in competition with each other, even within the groups of mutual self interest that they form. The idea that you can somehow magically form a complete union of disparate governments, communities, groups, and individuals that will often be in natural opposition on one level or another is the height of folly at best and a suicidal impulse at worse.<BR/><BR/>Nation building is a difficult enough business. Universalism corrodes the common culture of the nation state from within by means of untrammeled immigration. After all, a Thai is a German is a Russian is a Nigerian is a Saudi! Who's to say one is a better fit for America than the other? And in helping fracture the nations from which Universalism primarily emanates, it damages itself while coming no closer to its utopian goal.<BR/><BR/>Outwardly, it is impotent against external enemies except in making hapless appeals of a shared humanity and issuing stern warnings. The gears of war require feelings of tribalism or nationalism. Yes, the dreaded "us against them" mentality.<BR/><BR/>Animals, particularly social animals, are always battling their own kind, in one way or another. Man is an animal, and there is no brotherhood of man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-39846351734478096242007-10-14T11:37:00.000-07:002007-10-14T11:37:00.000-07:00broadside said:I'm trying to think of an ethnic gr...broadside said:<BR/><BR/><I>I'm trying to think of an ethnic group that doesn't have the worst imaginable stereotypes about it propagated by the mass media, and nothing is coming to mind.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you kidding? Maybe you should look into a brain transplant. A "hard-working" "migrant" with "good family values" brain sounds perfect.<BR/><BR/>Latinos and Muslims get <I>positive</I> stereotype treatment. Any negative impression an observer may get about Latinos (crime) or Muslims (attacks) comes purely from the sheer preponderance of facts. To the extent they can the media uses their editorial latitude to counteract this impression. The more mightily they try the more obvious their manipulation is becoming.<BR/><BR/>Jews are in a class by themselves. They generally get no coverage at all. And any goy who asks questions, much less says something negative, is tarred as an anti-Semite and ostracized. It might have something to do with <A HREF="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257286817&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull" REL="nofollow">their power</A>, but then as the link mtraven supplied above demonstrates, even a famous hero of the left like Dawkins can't say such a thing, even with a positive spin, without being attacked.Tanstaaflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809764986911255031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-17866243766244616482007-10-14T09:24:00.000-07:002007-10-14T09:24:00.000-07:00P.S. mtraven,Re; "allegiance to everybody"I think ...P.S. mtraven,<BR/><BR/><I>Re; "allegiance to everybody"</I><BR/><BR/>I think you've nailed it with that phrase. It defines the basic difference between the Individualist and the Universalist.<BR/><BR/>The Universalist observes that there are many people in the world and concludes that everyone owes everyone. The Individualist observes that there are many people in the world and concludes that no one owes anyone. <BR/><BR/>Which is better? Depends on the objective. The Universalists seem to believe there is an objective, though it seems unfocused, at best, to me. At worst it is simply manipulation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-39683044700525112292007-10-14T08:15:00.000-07:002007-10-14T08:15:00.000-07:00A+.Your list of references, a TV comedy and an app...A+.<BR/><BR/>Your list of references, a TV comedy and an apples-and-oranges study showing that class movement is less in more ethnically diverse cultures, is lengthy and impressive.<BR/><BR/>The subtlety of your self-promotion to bishop was excellent. You've taken <I>a</I> defense of affirmative action and insinuated that is the <I>the</I> defense, and proven that anyone who doesn't know you is "clueless" (excellent word choice!) with your tireless use of ad hominem.<BR/><BR/>High marks for tone. Kicking off your comments with three uses of the word "dude" in a single post was great strategy. Ditto for "hon". And your knowing that the real definition of "passive-aggressive" is "Socratic" ... good stuff!<BR/><BR/>Your use of four-letter and words and big, scaaarrry phrases like "computational complexity hierarchy" has surely converted countless hordes to your cause. Best of all is the attack on questioning (your reply to TGGP was unforgettable!) Since you know everyone, deep down, agrees with you, any questions about why you feel the way you do are superfluous and downright annoying. While other religions may find it offensive when someone questions their basic assumptions in their houses of worship, as Universalists, the entire world is our house of worship (and ours alone!), so our basic assumptions can never be questioned.B. Broadsidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07367930467071809840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7958140996781104565.post-23444123227820695402007-10-13T19:57:00.000-07:002007-10-13T19:57:00.000-07:00broadside,Ah, yes, my questions constitute "bold o...<B>broadside</B>,<BR/><BR/><I>Ah, yes, my questions constitute "bold opinions".</I><BR/><BR/>Take your passive-aggressive shit, and try it on someone else. I am not an idiot.<BR/><BR/><I>So if the bias came from a sense that the AA beneficiaries had unfair advantages that they couldn't do without, that's not a criticism of AA?</I><BR/><BR/>How did you manage to miss the point where i explicitly asserted the fundamental point of AA to be overcoming bias, rather than providing counter-bias? And if you agree that taking explicit ('affirmative') action to overcome bias and result in [racial-]bias-free e.g. admissions or hiring is a laudable goal, then you already agree with AA, and we are just quibbling about implementation. Which was exactly my point.<BR/><BR/><I>And if I ask you where your information comes from on this matter, you can just say I "haven't done the research". Thus proving yet again that big government is a raging success.</I><BR/><BR/>No, I will just say that this was a major and widely publicized study done recently, and if you hadn't heard about it, you've been living under a rock. Which, to be honest, I would not be at all surprised to find out were indeed the case.<BR/><BR/><I>Why don't you just ask if I've done the research?</I><BR/><BR/>Why? You already showed that you haven't, by evidencing ignorance even of the fact that such research is possible (specifically, of the quantifiability of the questions at hand).<BR/><BR/>As I said, don't try this passive-aggressive shit. It ain't gonna fly, hon. The Fox-News-style '<I>Could Clinton be secretly sleeping with Madeleine Albright?.. Some say...</I>' BS deceives no-one except for those who wish to be so deceived.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't believe you expected better from me at all.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually i did. In the initial post, i had considered explicitly praising you for making a good point, but i decided that this would sound condescending. Now it seems that condescention would be the best reaction you could hope for...<BR/><BR/><I>So, providing cites to back up what you've said is a "waste of neuronal activity"?</I><BR/><BR/>No, doing so to someone who obviously hadn't done even the basic research on the subject is. It's about comparable to being challenged to explain the computational complexity hierarchy, only to discover than the challenger barely knows basic arithmetic.<BR/><BR/><I>In case you didn't understand, the bad cake metaphors were a response to your vague allusions to references you wouldn't cite directly.</I><BR/><BR/>My 'vague allusions' were 'vague' because what i cited is common knowledge among the people who actually bother to investigate the subject. Similarly, I could vaguely reference computational incompleteness while trying to explain computational complexity to you -- doesn't mean I am being evasive, I just assumed that you actually had a fucking clue on the subject.<BR/><BR/><I>What annoys me is that progressives (a) won't admit they're a church, and (b) honestly don't seem to have noticed that they are bullies.</I><BR/><BR/>In short, you are clueless on the subject you presume to hold a strong opinion on, but <B>it's my fault</B> somehow. Personal responsibility anyone?..Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17964804781965361460noreply@blogger.com